Isn't the DOF razor thin wide open at close ups? The photo seems fine to me, but the AF had to take some decision what part to focus sharply. My experience is that when I'm complaining about a lens it's mostly me overestimating DOF.

urbahn wrote:
Isn't the DOF razor thin wide open at close ups? The photo seems fine to me, but the AF had to take some decision what part to focus sharply. My experience is that when I'm complaining about a lens it's mostly me overestimating DOF.

Sam Bennett wrote:
Jan, he was focused on the eye on the right-hand side of the screen. That doesn't look off to you

Thanks Sam and Jan as Sam said I focussed on the right of screen and his left eye. This is not the only picture that displayed this kind of a result.

Also my Dealer did similar test and concluded there was something wrong with the lens. It was not just me. Believe me I did the test on a chart with camera on a gitzo tripod and was using cable release. Took pictures at different F stops then I did similar test with 4 other L lenses 35L, 85L, 135L and 300L and they were all perfect except the 50L. No one wanted the 50L more than I and I kept convincing to myself that the lens was OK for over a month until I kept getting inconsistant results. In the end I had to give it up.

So, Canon acknowledged that "something was wrong" with the lens and that they subsequently fixed it. In brief tests around the store at f/2.8 it appears to be focusing correctly, but I'll have to wait a bit until I can do a full test.

Hate to break it to you guys, but the lens appears to be performing only marginally better than before. It seems to be better in practical shots, almost identical on the test chart, but still no where as accurate as the 50/1.4.

Going to do some more practical stuff, but I'm about 85% sure I'll be returning it tomorrow.

Gary - FWIW, I did tests at 3ft and 5ft and it didn't seem like the lens was starting to front focus. Don't think I have time to throw together a more formal setup.

Sam Bennett wrote:
Hate to break it to you guys, but the lens appears to be performing only marginally better than before. It seems to be better in practical shots, almost identical on the test chart, but still no where as accurate as the 50/1.4.

Going to do some more practical stuff, but I'm about 85% sure I'll be returning it tomorrow.

Gary - FWIW, I did tests at 3ft and 5ft and it didn't seem like the lens was starting to front focus. Don't think I have time to throw together a more formal setup.

Sorry about the news Sam.

I remember when I first received the lens at work (for obvious reasons ). I brought my camera to work, got my secretary into the office, shut the door and took pictures of her at f1.2, focusing on the eyes. Downloaded to computer and the eyes were blur. Took more pics at f5.6 and f8 and her eyes were blur as well, Then I put flash on camera and repeated test. Results, eye were blur again . Thats when I felt my lens was backlfocusing.

Didn't bother with the work order, but it sounds like they didn't give specifics.

Anyway, the lens has been returned. I have a 90mm TS-E on order and bought a new tripod/head/angle finder for some macro stuff I'm getting into. I'll try again with the 50L if/when Canon releases a statement about the problem and fixes it.

Just another experience update... I'm also using mine for low light high school basketball, so far more or less exclusively at f/2. I couldn't be happier with it — so much so that now I can't shoot with my 85 f/1.8 anymore.

Nill Toulme wrote:
Just another experience update... I'm also using mine for low light high school basketball, so far more or less exclusively at f/2. I couldn't be happier with it — so much so that now I can't shoot with my 85 f/1.8 anymore.

Nill
~~www.toulme.net
Nill, I just looked through the Druid Hills HS Bball pics - outstanding work!
Do you work near one basket, using the 50 for action near you and the 200 for stuff on the other end of the court? Since I see some 200mm shots at f/2, you must have the 1.8L.

nill, we'd expect your 50L to work as advertised under those conditions. the issue is at close focus and not at longer distances like sports. william castleman said his copy was perfect because he was only shooting sports. once he tested close up he noticed a problem.

either way, if it works well for your intended use then enjoy it and don't look back.